figma-mcp-go

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds that the style is 'local' (scope) and 'solid fill' (type constraint), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it fails to disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the name already exists), side effects, or whether the created style ID is returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. While admirably compact, its brevity contributes to gaps in sibling differentiation and behavioral context. It earns high marks for efficiency but could accommodate one more clause for usage guidance without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only three parameters with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the minimal viable surface. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent operation, it should clarify conflict resolution (duplicate names) and return values to be complete. Without output schema documentation, the description bears more responsibility for explaining what the agent receives back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents all three parameters including examples for name and color. The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond implying the color is for a 'solid fill.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as a 'local paint style with a solid fill color.' The 'local' and 'solid fill' qualifiers help distinguish it from global styles and sibling tools like create_effect_style or create_text_style. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from update_paint_style, which could confuse agents deciding between creation vs. modification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_paint_style or set_fills. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., whether a document must be open) and exclusion criteria (e.g., when not to create duplicate styles). Agents must infer usage context solely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.